Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | xinayder's commentslogin

Restricting content you access, or using that to shape what is offered to you on the internet.

Lots of grammar errors in some buttons, is this legit?

Lots of grammar errors and some really weird/fake lettering. It looks generated to me.

This is ridiculous. As WIRED has shown [0], the only 3D printed part of most "3D printed" guns is the frame. You can do only so much with the frame alone. All the other parts are sourced online and much easier to get, other than getting a 3D printer and finding the frame of the gun you want to print it for.

Maybe these advocating for gun control laws for 3D printers should first advocate for stricter control on selling spare repair parts for guns and the websites selling them with no sort of background check.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/luigi-mangione-ghost-gun-built-t...


It'll also just drive people to refactor designs into parts that pass individually.

I think this is also relevant, after finding out Telekom, in Hungary, has the worst routes possible for some game servers:

https://mtpeering.pages.dev/


Er, what exactly is this? It's not mentioned anywhere for laypeople like me. Perhaps they should focus on explaining what this project is, before asking for people to spread awareness. How can you spread awareness about something you don't even know what it is?


I agree. It looks very unprofessional. No contact adress. No representative person. No explanation of the acronym "EU-INC". Big buzzwords, visions, clichés and self congratulation.


Which isn't to say that "making commerce cheaper in Europe" isn't a worthwhile goal, it is- but at face value this attempt looks comically inept. "We wrote an email to a politician! Progress due any moment! Like and share!"

Doing the insufferable, thankless work of mitigating the commercial choke-points of bureaucracy on a Continental scale makes this effort's failure a forgone conclusion. I would take the attempt more seriously if the individuals tried to make their own country more commerce-friendly, rather than all of Europe.

Even so, points for trying something- anything- and raising "awareness".


There is a pretty good TL;DR on their "In-Depth Proposal" site: https://proposal.eu-inc.org/TL-DR-14d076fd79c581959325c8e52d...


Thanks, but from a quick glance I couldn't find it on the homepage. Also, it's a Notion document, they could instead just write all of these points on their landing page?

It reveals too much that this is actually done by amateurs. Heck, even the most basic business courses I took at a European uni show that this is NOT how you want to attract potential customers or investors.


> couldn't find it on the homepage

It’s the first link on the home page (“in-detail proposal”). One would presume anyone interested in what EU-INC is to read the first section titled “WHAT IS EU–INC”.


> How would they prove that he's profiting off their IP when his "mod" doesn't add content

Adding a VR mode to the game is definitely adding content. If you mean storywise, okay, I agree with you. Still, he's profiting off it in the fact that you need to pay a monthly fee to access the mod.

Even if he claims he's not, he indeed is profiting off it, because there is no way you can use the mod without paying first.

> If Valve was the developer of the VR compatibility software, CD Projekt would get crushed in court.

The difference is that Valve would have asked for permission first from CDPR if they could sell their software, or even then, work together with CDPR to have the software be implemented natively on the game. Plus, Valve has the same stance on paid mods on Steam, so it's not really a good comparison here.


> How is it their right to make that decision?

It's their game, it's written in the EULA, which everyone accepts blindly without reading. You have accepted the EULA before playing the game.

This is the same as the Steam Subscriber Agreement saying you CANNOT make paid mods using Valve's IP unless given permission to do so.

There's nothing wrong with CDPR going after someone who thought they'd get away by making an important mod paid-only. It's a totally different story if the $10 fee was optional.


They should focus research on thorium reactors as they are supposedly cleaner than what we have today, and afaik you can actually use the fuel waste again and again, so it drastically reduces the problem of nuclear waste and what to do with it.


The promise of thorium is that it requires external energy to be added to maintain the reaction. The theory is that it is safer because of this as it's far less likely that you get a runaway or out-of-control reaction.

The reality is more complex [1].

Molten salt reactors are another active area of research but they have been for decades as well.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0&t=1652s


It wasn't, it passed on the Council of EU.


The AI generated art is also disgusting. Makes the CEO look like an angry kid because his multi-billion dolar industry got a 1% income fine, which is nothing for them, for a service they provide that keeps having outages because they have bad coders who thought moving their shit code to Rust was a good idea.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: